One of my research interests is assigning classifications to things (molecules mostly) and that gets one onto thinking about the nature of names. There is the Humpty Dumpty approach, where we describe ourselves in terms no-one else can understand, viz. 'A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less'.And that is profoundly useless, or even destructive.[1]And there is the arbitrariness of various identities (ie Fakenger) which can be best exemplified by Borges reductio ad absurdum in the work 'analytical writings of John Wilkins'[2] (This page misses the final classification viz. those not included in this classification)A description only has meaning if it is useful. We see descriptions used in a very narrow sense in order to progress a particular agenda - the us and them on the road, the hoodies and decent folk, mountain bikers and roadies. In many ways this is useful. The breadth of description (or one could say appreciation) used for another person would be analogous to the broadness of their mind, or their intellect[3]. So one recognises as soon as the phrase 'bl**dy motorists', a narrow minded description from a small intellect. As for me, I am multitudinous, depending on where you stand. I am describably indescribable...d[1] Taking the wrong meaning for a word or description is more destructive than not understanding the meaning at all.[2] John Wilkins was one of the great taxonomists who was attempting to describe everything in science in a rational manner, in the early 18th Century.[3] Not intelligence, but intellect - a property like mental fitness which can be trained and improved.
